Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 13, 2012 8:00am-8:30am PDT

8:00 am
so by capturing that storm water, using natural flushing, recycling water from the sinks for flushing we are going to see a significant drop in water demand at the center >> and just what that translate into his in terms of total water demand. here you see the base case projection and what our current design is for the water demand at the transit center. but that annual savings of almost 10 million gallons a year is the equivalent to 115 u.s. house holds. so the significant water reduction that we are seeing at the transit center. and the other thing that i wanted to highlight in the water picture is because of the park, and its ability to absorb water and then whatever the water it does not absorb being diverted into the gray water system our combined sewe r, discharge is an 81 percent reduction over what it would
8:01 am
otherwise be. >> that gives you an update of how the design has evolved since january of 2011 to now. our design schedule for completing the construction documents is may of this coming year, 2013. although, they will be holding back completion of the it security and signage packages until 2014 to make sure that we are incorporating the most current equipment and technology in those packages when we put them out to bid. and so the amendment that we have before you today, is to increase the additional services and allowance under the agreement to address some of the changes that have occurred in the design process. and allow us to move forward to a completion of the 100 percent construction documents take other questions? >> director ortiz? >> i don't have a question, i just want to say that i have seen all of this improvement in
8:02 am
the design and safety, really good. because i make the motion to approve this amendment. >> second. >> motion to approve. >> director metcalf? >> thank you. for the presentation, i have two, maybe there those are more comments than questions. on the design of the bus deck level, it seems like you are getting to another level of detail which is great at this stage. i just want to observe that this building is going to be here a long time and the bus operations are going to change a lot. the current set of operators, new operators will come into existence, they will merge and destinations will change. i think that it is best to conceive of the equipment on that level, as furniture, rather than as building systems. because it is going to change a lot over the years. i guess i want to make sure
8:03 am
that you are designing for that kind of flexibility over the decades as with the bus operations change. >> yeah. i mean we are designing the bus deck to be dynamic, even in the short term. to be able as i said be able to shift operations on the bus decks so that at one time of day a certain route might be located in one location and move to another location. the other thing that we have talked about is exactly what you talked about, that over the years, we for instance, we had currently had the bus base for the mini treasure island articulated for the buses. and the majorty of the bus bays are layed out for the mti-scale coaches. and we have talked about the potential for double-decker buses for ac transit.
8:04 am
as well as, you know, what would be required to modify and convert three bus bays to two articulated bays. and if we need to notify it we can do it relatively simple without getting into a lot of the building systems and the drainage system and driving up the costs of making the kind of changes that you are talking about over the long >> my second comment is that i want to, i continue to believe that the park on the top is the area of highest risk for the operations of the building. and the world is filled with elevated parks that have failed.
8:05 am
and only a few that have succeeded and i think that we need to delve at some point more depth in the design and the accessibility of that park. a final design when it opens and i think that this is just a high-risk, part of the building that could very much damage the brand of the transbay terminal if it turns out the way that most elevated parks and cities around the world have turned out. so i just want to flag it as an area that i think will need continued focus from this group. >> thank you, director. that is always a good point to make. and i do want to mention and certainly bob can follow up on this. in addition to have a
8:06 am
connection from the transit tower to the park and we are going to have a connection of other developments to the park. there will be direct connections from the towers and surrounding high-rises to the park. we are also working very closely with our team on putting out at some point soon, a concept of operations rfp that will be looking at both the facility, as well as the park level. and how to best operate it, and to secure it and insure that it is successful. we are looking at high line park here in new york as one of the models. that park has been successful and it does not have the level of taller connections that our park will have. and in addition to that, whereas you know we are going to be having a number of programming activities and an amp i theatre for music and restaurant and cafeand that is something that we will be managing closely and we will be bringing that to the board and bob did you have anything that you wanted to add on that? >> i think to the point of the
8:07 am
connections, earlier on in the engineering process, we were looking at where we knew that future development would occur and trying to plan for that. and have moved to in our conversations with the structural engineers, about a flexible approach. and so that projects that, like, 535 mission that have currently indicated that they are not interested in connecting to the park, if they in the future do want to connect to the park, how do we accommodate that in a manner that rather than saying, these are the half a dozen locations where we can accommodate connections? having done the work, so that we can accommodate connections wherever they may arise. so. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i will just say that i also just the one comment that i will make is the importance of the lighting. i think that is something that will be of great importance to
8:08 am
the residents and the neighbor and what we here about the most is the lighting at night in terms of people feeling safe and allowing them to utilize open space as especially in the wintertime when it gets dark at 4:30 or 5:00 and we appreciate your thoughtfulness on tha. >> director reiskin? >> first of all i would concur with the previous director's comments. i think that those are good and important points. great presentation, very exciting to start to see the details and see how this is really going to look and feel. my two questions, one, part of what makes this exciting is that there has been a lot of thought that has gone into the design, this is a lot of features and elements both aesthetic and functional and structural that is part of what is going to make this a great facility that the flip side of which is being a lot of that has cost. and i know that there has been a lot of thought that has gone
8:09 am
into ways to operationally make it as efficient as possible. i am wondering to the extent, do we have kind of a formal process, for soliciting value engineering and cost-reducing proposals from the different trade packages so that if there are ways to bring down the cost, we can encourage, if not ensensitivize them? >> we don't have anything formally built into the bid packages themselves. the next big one that is coming up is the steel package. as i said, we have brought on this casting consultant right now and we are actively engaged with the foundries with the dialogue about the castings and the types of materials that are being specified for the steel in terms of its availability and its workable. and so trying to bring those
8:10 am
constructbility comments in through both web core, as our cmgc and the cast connects and some of the other consultants prior to bidding. we have had some conversations about future packages and where we will be able to incorporate incentive clauses or value engineering proposal clauses, but we have not incorporated that in any of the packages to date. >> what we do do director is prior to issuing a bid package, we do quite an extensive value of engineering beforehand. and we brought web core obayashi to do the work for us so that they are working hand in hand with the design team to make sure that they are looking at these costs and they are as realistic as possible and if there is a way to do this better, if there is a different methodology or material, and prior to doing anything out to bid we are doing value engineering. >> i understand that is one of the great values of going with
8:11 am
a gmgc approach is that you have that view both for constructbility and design up front working with the designers, we just have had other experience in the city, using cmgc even with web core with the new pec building where we were able to use a formal ve process as part of the bid process. and you make a bid and you submit your ve proposals. the structure and situated that even that you could take my ve proposal and put it with her bid and still get the value of it. and so it is something that because you mentioned the complexity of where the structural connections enter faced with the architectural systems and they are a good example of where, there is one detail that you going to ultimately rant on for design but the contractor who is going to win they have a different and better way of doing it. i encure j us to think about
8:12 am
formalizing that process because this is an intricate and complex design and it seems that the costs will be going up in the construction industry and we want to encourage and ensentivize folks to identify savings. >> that is a good idea, we will look at that director. >> the other question was just the dollar amount. my suspicious when i see a lot of 0s. the roundness of the dollar amount seems like it is not based on a fee proposal kind of an allowance approach? >> yeah. the contract has an additional services limit authorized by ntp's ready executive director. and the modification is to raise that allowance to match the aamount or the budgeted amount. we have a number of proposals that are under negotiation. for additional services. so we didn't have a hard modification to bring to you.
8:13 am
but this gives the executive director the capacity to authorize those as they are fully negotiated. >> okay, thank you. >> i will second. >> do we have a motion and a second? >> are there any other questions or comments? >> seeing none. we roll call. >> members of the public indicated that they want to address you on that. >> dr. lloyd? >> we actually i am sorry. okay. >> we will take public comment on this item. actually that was a separate question that we had called up earlier but please do come up. >> >> my name is jim patrick and we own an adjacent piece of property and i wanted to address what mr. metcalf said and you agreed about the access to the park is critical to what we are talking about and it is stimulated me to come up here and say, tj pa has designed an exit way that occupies a third
8:14 am
of our joint property line and thes a stairway that goes out. and i made three or four proposals to prove that someplace else so that we could have an entry into the park. to date i have been successful in achieving that goal and i would like to encourage the board to sort of rethink that west end design so that we have an exciting west end design. right now we have a stairway and a elevator and i think that is the wrong decision. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? >> and i am going to close the public comment on this item and move to roll call. >> with that director lloyd? >> aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> reiskin. >> aye. >> ortiz. >> aye. >> kim. >> aye. as well. that is five ayes and item eight is approved. >> item number nine. >> approving the minutes of the september 13, 2012 meeting. >> so moved. >> a second. >> we have a motion and a second to approve item number nine, are there any comments or
8:15 am
questions? >> seeing none, roll call. >> and any members of the public that indicated that they wanted to address you. >> lloyd. >> aye. >> metcalf. >> abstain. >> reiskin. >> aye. >> ortiz. >> aye. >> kim, aye. >> as well, four ayes and item nine is approved. >> thank you. at this time we the board will convene into closed session. before we reconvene back into regular session, before before we do that i did want to allow members of the public if they would like to comment on an items that we will be discussing at closed session. >> seeing no public comment, at this time, we will close that. and we will take a motion to convene into closed session. >> so moved. >> second. >> we have a motion and a second. at this time we will convene into closed session.
8:16 am
>> can we entertain a motion not to disclose in >> so moved. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> nothing to report from the closed session. >> that concludes the business before you today. >> thank you, meeting is adjourned.
8:17 am
>> director's meeting of october 11th, 2012 is now back in open session and the council will report on the announcement
8:18 am
8:19 am
8:20 am
8:21 am
8:22 am
8:23 am
8:24 am
8:25 am
8:26 am
8:27 am
8:28 am
8:29 am